Next Article in Journal
Antiandrogenic and Estrogenic Activity Evaluation of Oxygenated and Nitrated Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Using Chemically Activated Luciferase Expression Assays
Next Article in Special Issue
Effect of Online Home-Based Resistance Exercise Training on Physical Fitness, Depression, Stress, and Well-Being in Middle-Aged Persons: A Pilot Study
Previous Article in Journal
Anxiety in the Classroom: Only Girls’ Anxiety Is Related to Same-Sex Peers’ Anxiety
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Potential of Exerkines in Women’s COVID-19: A New Idea for a Better and More Accurate Understanding of the Mechanisms behind Physical Exercise
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 20
Issue 1
10.3390/ijerph20010073
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Interventions Designed to Support Physical Activity and Disease Prevention for Working from Home: A Scoping Review

by
Melanie Crane
1,*,
Alec Cobbold
1,
Matthew Beck
2,
Tracy Nau
1,
Christopher Standen
3,4,
Chris Rissel
1,5,
Ben J. Smith
1,6,
Stephen Greaves
2,
William Bellew
1 and
Adrian Bauman
1
1
Prevention Research Collaboration, Sydney School of Public Health, The Charles Perkins Centre, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
2
Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies, The University of Sydney Business School, The University of Sydney, Darlington, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
3
Centre for Primary Health Care and Equity, School of Population Health, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia
4
Health Equity Research and Development Unit, Sydney Local Health District, Camperdown, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
5
College of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Sturt Rd, Adelaide, SA 5024, Australia
6
Western Sydney Local Health District, Westmead Hospital, Westmead, Sydney, NSW 2145, Australia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20(1), 73; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20010073
Submission received: 28 October 2022 / Revised: 8 December 2022 / Accepted: 19 December 2022 / Published: 21 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Physical Activity, Exercise on Chronic Disease Prevention and Human Health)
Browse Figure
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Working from home (WfH) has public health implications including changes to physical activity (PA) and sedentary behavior (SB). We reviewed published and grey literature for interventions designed to support PA or reduce SB in WfH contexts. From 1355 published and grey literature documents since 2010, we screened 136 eligible documents and extracted ten intervention studies. Interventions designed specifically for WfH were limited and included structured exercise programs, infrastructure (e.g., sit-stand workstations), online behavioral and educational programs, health professional advice and peer support, activity trackers and reminder prompts. Evidence of interventions to improve PA and reduce SB in WfH contexts is emergent but lacking in variety and in utilization of local environments to promote good health. Evidence is needed on the adaptation of existing workplace interventions for home environments and exploration of opportunities to support PA through alternative interventions, such as urban planning and recreational strategies.

1. Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic has changed the way people work. Work(ing)-from-home (WfH) is now more common, particularly in office-based professions [1]. Pre-pandemic, WfH was limited to few organizations and individuals. In the US, 5% of the workforce were working from home in 2018, increasing to 45% during the early phase of the pandemic. Around 21% are expected to continue doing so beyond 2022 [2]. Similar patterns have been reported in Europe [3], while in Australia, 41% of the workforce WfH compared to 8% pre-pandemic [4]. Many organizations have embedded working from home within flexible work arrangements as an outcome of the conditions of the pandemic [4]. Now as employers, governments, and urban planners grapple with the implications of working from home on office space, workplace policies, digital technologies and business district planning [5], they need to also consider potential health implications.
Workplace settings are important for the prevention of non-communicable disease (NCD) and to promote healthy lifestyles [6]. Workplace health promotion programs may comprise policies, environmental supports, and activities to reduce lifestyle risk factors for NCDs; these differ from work/occupational health and safety programs which focus on minimizing risk of injury and illness inherent in workplace operations [6]. As employees adapt to WfH, existing health promotion programs may no longer suffice for NCD prevention. To ensure that preventive health strategies are suitable in the context of WfH changes, an examination of workplace health promotion strategies are needed.
Recent research suggests positive health benefits associated with WfH, including reduced work-family conflict, lower absenteeism, better psychological health, and better physical health [7,8,9]. There are mixed findings on the impact of WfH on physical activity (PA). Some studies which guided early pandemic guidance suggested PA was higher amongst those working from home [10], but more recent studies report decreases in PA and increases in sedentary behaviors (SB) [9,11]. Pre-COVID, some 25% of the world’s population were already failing to achieve sufficient PA as recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) [12]. High-income countries, where desk-based workers are more prevalent, are most at risk of physical inactivity [1,12]. Physical inactivity is estimated to cost the global economy tens of billions of dollars in healthcare expenditure and lost productivity [13]. Unless it is better understood and addressed, the negative impact of WfH on PA could compound an already substantial health and economic burden.
Workplaces remain a key intervention setting for PA [14]. Interventions designed to improve PA have targeted workplace infrastructure (e.g., stair use, sit-stand desks) or structured programs, awareness raising, behavioral support (e.g., group-based exercise programs, counselling) and commuting (e.g., active travel) [15,16,17,18]. For workplace health promotion programs in the WfH context, targeting the journey to work or in-office programs, is arguably insufficient as a strategy for promoting PA. In addition, SB may increase without mechanisms to interrupt sitting [9]. Key interventions and policies for PA in the workplace need to be re-designed for WfH. The purpose of this review was to identify existing and emerging evidence-based interventions for PA in the WfH context.

2. Methods

2.1. Literature Review Search Strategy

A scoping review design was deemed most appropriate for extracting information from new and unpublished sources, given the recent changes in the WfH context. We applied the Joanna Briggs Institute framework for scoping reviews, developing an a priori protocol for framing the research question, identification and selection of studies, search, extraction and analysis of evidence as outlined below [19]. The primary research question was ‘which workplace health promotion interventions have been developed to support PA for the working from home environment.’ Searches for published literature were undertaken in Scopus, Web of Science and various Ebsco Host databases, while searches for grey literature were undertaken in Google, Mednar (a deep web search portal for medical research) and targeted websites. Search terms included a combination of WfH terms, PA/SB terms, and health intervention terms. From the Google search the first five pages of results were exported, following recommended practice [20]. Targeted websites included international health authorities and business consulting companies identified in consultation with experts. Table 1 provides a summary of the search strategy. See Supplementary File S1 for full details.

2.2. Document Selection

After removing duplicates, we screened titles and abstracts using the following criteria.
Inclusion criteria:
  • Scientific studies, case studies, reports, book chapters, reviews that described an intervention aiming to improve PA or interrupt SB for office workers in a home-based setting. “Work” was defined as time spent in paid work from home for any number of days/hours over the working week.
  • The intervention included any form of activity undertaken during work time, or to replace active commuting time that could contribute to a person achieving sufficient PA to meet recommended guidelines [21]. This could involve recreational activity, play, or active commuting, including light, moderate or vigorous intensity activity during a working day. The intervention had to be a defined and standardized program that could be replicable and subject to efficacy testing, excluding documents comprising solely generic encouragement to ‘sit less’ or ‘be active’.
  • Published after 2010 in English.
  • Conducted in a high or middle income country (HMIC) where WfH trends and occupations have concentrated [5].
Exclusion criteria:
  • Interventions developed for clinical use, institutionalized populations, elite athletes, older adults, children, students, or non-working populations.
  • Conference abstracts with limited information.
  • News articles, generic advice, or factsheets.
Screening was conducted using Covidence [22]. For each document, two of the authors provided a blind rating on its potential inclusion. Any disagreements between reviewers were resolved by a third author. We then assessed the full text of documents surviving title/abstract screening for eligibility using the same criteria.

2.3. Data extraction and Analysis

Using an iterative approach, we extracted the following information from the included studies: country, date (pre/post COVID-19), WfH context, study population, descriptions of the intervention and outcomes, provider organization (including sector/discipline), level of scientific evidence (published or otherwise), and strength of evidence provided (i.e., study design, sample size). The information was then summarized using thematic analysis in relation to the research question.

3. Results

3.1. Overview of Data

Of 136 full texts assessed for eligibility, we excluded 123. Many of the documents, particularly from targeted websites, provided only generic information or advice, encouraging workers to do PA and be aware of SB but offering no structured actions that constituted an intervention. We excluded other documents because they focused on interventions or outcomes (e.g., work productivity) for which PA or SB may have had little direct or indirect impact (n = 12). Other documents did not specifically refer to WfH (n = 34) or relevant working populations (n = 3). Figure 1 describes the PRISMA flowchart.
Eleven documents were included for extraction and analysis: of these, seven were sourced from published literature databases, seven as peer-reviewed publications [23,24,25,26,27,28,29] and one document as an expanded case study of an included article [30]. Two further documents were identified using Google [31,32]. One [33] was from a targeted website. Only one of the documents identified was published pre-COVID-19 [26].

3.2. Intervention Characteristics

The interventions identified (Table 2) were predominantly short, structured and repetitive exercise programs which could be performed within the home working environment with minimal equipment (e.g., elastic band exercises, yoga mats) [23,25,27,31,32,33]. These interventions varied from a sequence of one-minute exercises to 50-minute video workout to be completed independently daily, three times a week or once per week (for the longer duration program). The duration of the exercise programs ran from 1–4 months. In terms of weekly PA, all six of the exercise programs ran for a duration less than 60 minutes/week of PA. One intervention was a trial of sit-stand workstations for employees while WfH [24]. This intervention included an online behavioral program of weekly education sessions that built intentions to reduce SB during the workday, and encouraged participants to set small, manageable goals to sit less and building short walks and/or activity breaks into the day. The program also prompted individuals to virtually interact with other participants. Another behavioral intervention included group and individual activities including an initial group education session, a personalized action plan, weekly email prompts and optional group support [26]. A third behavioral intervention used online educational and motivational content as well as access to a physical trainer and physiotherapist [30]. One intervention used a group social media platform to inform and motivate (goal setting, feedback and social support and social networking) PA and SB breaks during work and non-working days [29]. Activity trackers were used for self-monitoring in two interventions [24,26].
Where identified, intervention populations were office-based workers, selected from one organization in the case of four of the interventions, while three interventions recruited participants more broadly from any occupation/sector through social networks or social media recruiting methods. Participants were generally young-middle aged adult employees and female, although two studies involved primarily male workers (female ~35%).

3.3. Level of Scientific Evidence

Just over half of the included studies (n = 6) used experimental or quasi-experimental evaluation designs. Of these, five included control groups. Primary outcomes reported included total minutes of PA, three also reporting SB. The exercise programs (of a set duration of PA) recorded their impact on SB other outcomes. These outcomes included musculoskeletal discomfort, psychological outcomes, work performance and overall health. None of these studies measured total PA to determine the contribution to overall PA levels. Two studies used objective measures to record PA (accelerometers, blood biomarkers) and the other four provided only self-reported outcomes. Study populations measuring efficacy were broadly samples selected for convenience during the COVID-19 pandemic, only one collected evidence on WfH during ‘business as usual’ and while this study did not compare with a control arm it did compare workers activity while working in home and office settings [26]. Three documents, selected from unpublished sources, included no information about efficacy.

4. Discussion

WfH changes brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic are likely to continue in some form (either fully or partially) for many organizations and for many employees. Multiple benefits have been enabled by working from home [2]. At the same time, accumulating evidence suggests that WfH contributes to poorer levels of PA and increasing SB in home-based workers. [9,11]. Addressing these challenges requires a public health response. This does not mean that working from home should be discouraged, rather that population health actions should be implemented to enable the population WfH to do so in a way that minimizes the negative impacts on health and wellbeing, particularly on PA. As such, this review identified interventions that support PA for home-based workers and provides guidance to health authorities, employers, and advocacy groups.

4.1. Summary of Findings and Reflection on Existing Evidence

While the COVID-19 pandemic catalyzed many changes for working populations globally, we found surprisingly few PA interventions reported in the WfH context. Virtual exercise programs were the most common intervention type. However, none of the identified exercise programs measured total levels of PA or SB time over the working day/week, providing little evidence of the overall effects of the interventions on overall PA levels. Organized group or individually guided virtual programs are very readily available, such as the three grey literature interventions identified here, but the efficacy of these interventions for implementation by workplaces appears to be limited. Many other organic PA programs may have been promoted during the pandemic by organizations for employees in virtual group or individual settings.
The provision of sit-stand desks was effective, both in interrupting SB and in improving PA in one study but did not result in changes in cardiometabolic health [24]. The existing evidence here is limited but suggestive that active workstations allow for more physical activity [34]. The demand for active workstations may have increased substantially from the start of the pandemic but the effects on physical health outcomes in any context have been small [35]. More home-based studies on office infrastructure including sit-stand desks are needed given the heterogeneity of home environments. These types of simple interventions are low resource intensive and may have greater potential for rapid adaptation to home contexts.
Four interventions identified were behavioral type interventions offering health education, behavioral support, motivational counselling, goal setting, and peer support through virtual platforms. Activity trackers, emails or other prompts were also used to encourage PA or break SB. In general, multi-component workplace interventions have been the most effective in improving health behaviors in workplace settings [18].
Only one intervention explored workers behavior both in the home and office environment and it appeared to be more effective in changing SB when workers attended the office than at home [26], suggesting barriers in the home environment. The duration of the interventions identified were limited to a few months (four at the most), therefore it is not known how long any of the interventions suggested would sustain PA implemented over time in WfH populations.

4.2. Implications for Research

Evidence on effective interventions to support PA in the physical workplace setting is well established [15,16,17,18], but evidence gaps have emerged on how existing effective programs or new interventions may contribute to PA in the WfH context. Efficacy and effectiveness trials need to include more objective markers of PA to determine the impact of such interventions on total PA levels.
Some recommendations during the initial phase of the pandemic promoted active work meetings, standing desks for home-based work, and incentives to encourage employees to exercise [36]. These interventions need to be evaluated to determine the contribution of interventions to increases in PA and reductions in SB, and to build further evidence in demonstrating the contribution to meeting recommended PA levels for health. Most of the studies in this review were conducted during the initial phases of the COVID-19 pandemic when WfH was more likely to be enforced. This means that new long-term PA interventions need to be developed and trialed for the current post-pandemic context, including those adapted for hybrid models of working. This may involve face-to-face and online program components and more varied programs to allow for multiple settings and levels of interaction. To improve the evidence base, interventions co-designed by researchers, employees and managers may ensure that interventions are both effective and sustainable [37].
Implementation research evidence is needed to improve understanding about the contextual factors influencing the successful uptake of these initiatives in the home environment. Implementation challenges in office settings include the workplace culture, job requirements and public perceptions [37]. These may remain as a challenge even in WfH context. The blurring of work-home boundaries in WfH contexts may create other challenges that require qualitative and quantitative research investigation. For example, structured programs, group support and guidance may be more suitable for certain individuals and their home context, and unstructured PA support interventions more suitable for other employees. The barriers and enablers to implementing and sustaining these WfH interventions, as well as their effectiveness in sub-populations needs to be explored. In addition, a broader research agenda, moving beyond workplace boundaries, is needed to address the new challenges of a rising and more permanent WfH population.

4.3. Implications for Policy and Practice

WfH will continue to grow and evolve into new labor markets and sectors including in lower income countries in the future. Supporting equity of access will require a suite of flexible interventions which can accommodate home-based, office-based and hybrid working. WHO recommends employers implement programs to promote healthy WfH, stating the importance of routine breaks and the need for achieving sufficient PA, but stops short on specifying how that could be achieved [10]. The OECD provides guidance on policies for improving WfH productivity, but without any connection to health [5]. Given that national guidance specifically for WfH is also limited, a gap in leadership and knowledge on how to promote PA in WfH is evident [6,38,39]. Recommendations of which types of interventions organizations need to implement is needed. At the least, these interventions should be multicomponent, able to be implemented in multiple settings and encourage PA during the work day and breaks from SB. The implications of not providing more structured guidance for workplaces may have a ripple effect. The most recent global status report on PA indicates that one-third of countries around the world have implemented national policies promoting PA in workplaces [40]. If observed patterns of poorer PA in the working population persist, then it will be more difficult to achieve the WHO’s 2030 population targets for PA [14].
Finding ways to support PA within and beyond the working day is central to preventing chronic diseases in the adult population. Incidental PA accrued throughout the day by workers walking to a meeting or to food outlets as well as too and from work may be lost if home-based workers do not leave their homes (or do so by car). Alternative forms of PA are needed to replace these losses. Commuting to work by active or public transport five days per week can provide adults with sufficient PA for health [41]. Active travel is not restrained to the work commute and can be undertaken for other purposes. However, while promoted in many countries active travel remains limited. In the US and Australia, for example, passive commuting is high [42,43,44] and increasing in other countries, like China [45]. WfH may provide time saving for PA that may have been lost by a passive commute, providing benefits to this proportion of the population however only if the time is allocated to PA is not switched to other passive activities. Great variations in PA occurred across sub-populations WfH under enforced COVID-19 restrictions, suggesting that some groups adapt but others will need greater support [46]. Without concerted, inclusive efforts to support PA in the adult working population, physical activity and other health disparities may increase [14].
Changes to workplace policies and enhanced urban planning is needed, with policies fostering a culture and norms that prioritize health and wellbeing of employees. A combination of individual, organizational and environmental level strategies may be effective, particularly for reducing workplace SB [18]. Organizational and/or management commitment to support PA during work hours is essential. In the WfH context, strategies that reconnect isolated workers with each other may be important to support and maintain behavior change. Short-term incentives, such as health fund rewards or gym memberships could initiate long-term behavior change [47], however interventions outside the workplace have had little previous impact on sedentary behavior [48].
The pandemic has highlighted the issue of equitable access to environments supportive of PA, including greenspace and walking/cycling infrastructure for recreational and active travel [49]. The built environment facilitates PA [50,51]. Planning and designing cities and neighborhoods around the ‘15-minute sustainable city’ model, such that many day-to-day activities, including work, can be accessed locally by walking and cycling will provide many benefits for people WfH achieving PA. In many cities cycling, walking and use of greenspace increased during the pandemic [52,53], suggesting this aspiration is realistic.

5. Limitations

While this review has sought to comprehensively investigate PA interventions for WfH, we excluded interventions which did not explicitly refer to the WfH environment. Similarly, as we were interested in the working adult population, we excluded studies conducted to support PA in school and university populations. The paucity of research studies we found that focused on WfH adult contexts is a major evidence gap and limits any conclusive assessment of the types of interventions that should be implemented.

6. Conclusions

Work culture has changed as a legacy of the COVID-19 pandemic with more people WfH. Few interventions have been developed and evaluated to support PA and interrupt SB for the WfH context, suggesting a need to adapt and test more interventions for PA promotion/ SB interruption in the WfH setting. The existing evidence is inadequate to determine the potential impact of PA interventions for WfH settings. Therefore, to reduce the risk of chronic diseases associated with physical inactivity there is a need to improve knowledge and practice-based interventions, and this should remain a focus of population health into the future as business models for WfH emerge and evolve.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/ijerph20010073/s1, Supplementary File S1—scoping review search strategy. References [54,55] are cited in the supplementary materials.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: M.C.; Methodology: M.C., A.C., A.B. and W.B.; Validation: C.R., C.S., T.N., M.B., S.G. and B.J.S.; Formal Analysis: M.C.; Investigation: M.C.; Data Curation: A.C.; Writing – Original Draft Preparation: M.C.; Writing – Review & Editing: W.B., A.B., M.B., C.S., C.R., S.G., T.N. and A.C. Visualization (Figure): A.C.; Project Administration: M.C.; Funding Acquisition: M.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by The Australian Prevention Partnership Centre through the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (NHMRC) partnership centre grant scheme (Grant ID: GNT9100001).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

No new data was created or analysed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. International Labour Organization. World Employment and Social Outlook: Trends 2022; International Labour Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  2. Barrero, J.M.; Bloom, N.; Davis, S.J. Why Working from Home Will Stick; National Bureau of Economic Research: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  3. Milasi, S.; González-Vázquez, I.; Fernández-Macías, E. Telework before the COVID-19 Pandemic: Trends and Drivers of Differences across the EU; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  4. Productivity Commission. Working from Home; Australian Government: Canberra, Australia, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  5. OECD. Productivity Gains from Teleworking in the Post COVID-19 Era: How Can Public Policies Make it Happen? Available online: https://www.oecd.org/coronavirus/policy-responses/productivity-gains-from-teleworking-in-the-post-covid-19-era-a5d52e99/ (accessed on 2 May 2022).
  6. Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Workplace Health Promotion; CDC: Atlanta, GA, USA, 2019. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/workplacehealthpromotion/initiatives/resource-center/index.html (accessed on 6 March 2022).
  7. Shifrin, N.V.; Michel, J.S. Flexible work arrangements and employee health: A meta-analytic review. Work Stress 2022, 36, 60–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Oakman, J.; Kinsman, N.; Stuckey, R.; Graham, M.; Weale, V. A rapid review of mental and physical health effects of working at home: How do we optimise health? BMC Public Health 2020, 20, 1825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Stockwell, S.; Trott, M.; Tully, M.; Shin, J.; Barnett, Y.; Butler, L.; McDermott, D.; Schuch, F.; Smith, L. Changes in physical activity and sedentary behaviours from before to during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown: A systematic review. BMJ Open Sport Exerc. Med. 2021, 7, e000960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. World Health Organization. Healthy and safe telework: Technical brief. In Healthy and Safe Telework: Technical Brief; WHO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  11. Wunsch, K.; Kienberger, K.; Niessner, C. Changes in Physical Activity Patterns Due to the Covid-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 2250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Guthold, R.; Stevens, G.A.; Riley, L.M.; Bull, F.C. Worldwide trends in insufficient physical activity from 2001 to 2016: A pooled analysis of 358 population-based surveys with 1.9 million participants. Lancet Glob. Health 2018, 6, e1077–e1086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Ding, D.; Lawson, K.D.; Kolbe-Alexander, T.L.; Finkelstein, E.A.; Katzmarzyk, P.T.; van Mechelen, W.; Pratt, M. The economic burden of physical inactivity: A global analysis of major non-communicable diseases. Lancet 2016, 388, 1311–1324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. World Health Organization. Global Action Plan on Physical Activity 2018–2030: More Active People for a Healthier World; WHO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  15. Malik, S.H.; Blake, H.; Suggs, L.S. A systematic review of workplace health promotion interventions for increasing physical activity. Br. J. Health Psychol. 2014, 19, 149–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Conn, V.S.; Hafdahl, A.R.; Cooper, P.S.; Brown, L.M.; Lusk, S.L. Meta-analysis of workplace physical activity interventions. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2009, 37, 330–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Hutcheson, A.K.; Piazza, A.J.; Knowlden, A.P. Work site–based environmental interventions to reduce sedentary behavior: A systematic review. Am. J. Health Promot. 2018, 32, 32–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Chu, A.H.; Ng, S.H.; Tan, C.S.; Win, A.; Koh, D.; Müller-Riemenschneider, F. A systematic review and meta-analysis of workplace intervention strategies to reduce sedentary time in white-collar workers. Obes. Rev. 2016, 17, 467–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Peters, M.D.; Godfrey, C.; McInerney, P.; Munn, Z.; Tricco, A.C.; Khalil, H. Chapter 11: Scoping reviews (2020 version). JBI Man. Evid. Synth. JBI 2020, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  20. Lefebvre, C.; Glanville, J.; Briscoe, S.; Littlewood, A.; Marshall, C.; Metzendorf, M.I.; Noel-Storr, A.; Rader, T.; Shokraneh, F.; Thomas, J.; et al. Searching for and Selecting Studies; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: Chichester, UK, 2019; pp. 67–107. [Google Scholar]
  21. Bull, F.C.; Al-Ansari, S.S.; Biddle, S.; Borodulin, K.; Buman, M.P.; Cardon, G.; Carty, C.; Chaput, J.-P.; Chastin, S.; Chou, R.; et al. World Health Organization 2020 guidelines on physical activity and sedentary behaviour. Br. J. Sports Med. 2020, 54, 1451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Covidence Systematic Review Software. Available online: www.covidence.org (accessed on 22 March 2022).
  23. Garcia, M.G.; Estrella, M.; Peñafiel, A.; Arauz, P.G.; Martin, B.J. Impact of 10-Min Daily Yoga Exercises on Physical and Mental Discomfort of Home-Office Workers During COVID-19. Hum. Factors 2021, 00187208211045766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Mailey, E.L.; Rosenkranz, R.; Rosenkranz, S.K.; Ablah, E.; Talley, M.; Biggins, A.; Towsley, A.; Honn, A. Reducing Occupational Sitting while Working from Home: Individual and Combined Effects of a Height-Adjustable Desk and an Online Behavioral Intervention. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 2022, 64, 91–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Moreira, S.; Criado, M.B.; Ferreira, M.S.; Machado, J.; Gonçalves, C.; Clemente, F.M.; Mesquita, C.; Lopes, S.; Santos, P.C. Positive Effects of an Online Workplace Exercise Intervention during the COVID-19 Pandemic on Quality of Life Perception in Computer Workers: A Quasi-Experimental Study Design. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 3142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Olsen, H.M.; Brown, W.J.; Kolbe-Alexander, T.; Burton, N.W. A brief self-directed intervention to reduce office employees’ sedentary behavior in a flexible workplace. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 2018, 60, 954–959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Wadhen, V.; Cartwright, T. Feasibility and outcome of an online streamed yoga intervention on stress and wellbeing of people working from home during COVID-19. Work 2021, 69, 331–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Núñez-Sánchez, J.M.; Gómez-Chacón, R.; Jambrino-Maldonado, C.; Garcia-Fernandez, J. Corporate Well-Being Programme in COVID-19 Times. The Mahou San Miguel Case Study. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Muniswamy, P.; Gorhe, V.; Parashivakumar, L.; Chandrasekaran, B. Short-term effects of a social media-based intervention on the physical and mental health of remotely working young software professionals: A randomised controlled trial. Appl. Psychol. Health Well-Being 2022, 14, 537–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Núñez-Sánchez, J.M.; Gómez-Chacón, R.; Jambrino-Maldonado, C. Digital Tools for Adapting Corporate Wellness Programmes to the New Situation Caused by COVID-19: A Case Study. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Technology in Physical Activity and Sport, Seville, Spain, 16–17 November 2022; pp. 74–87. [Google Scholar]
  31. Niva Education. Video: Work from Home Exercise Program—NIVA Education. Available online: https://niva.org/course/video-work-from-home-exercise-program/ (accessed on 26 April 2022).
  32. Vantage Fit. An Easy and Effective Work from Home Workout Routine to Stay Fit. Available online: https://blog.vantagefit.io/work-from-home-workout/ (accessed on 26 April 2022).
  33. BeUpstanding. Simple Activities to be Active at Your Desk—Part 1. Available online: http://beupstanding.blog/2022/04/simple-activities-to-be-active-at-your-desk/ (accessed on 26 April 2022).
  34. Engelen, L.; Chau, J.; Young, S.; Mackey, M.; Jeyapalan, D.; Bauman, A. Is activity-based working impacting health, work performance and perceptions? A systematic review. Build. Res. Inf. 2019, 47, 468–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Chambers, A.J.; Robertson, M.M.; Baker, N.A. The effect of sit-stand desks on office worker behavioral and health outcomes: A scoping review. Appl. Ergon. 2019, 78, 37–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Bartmann, N.; Cloughesy, J.N.; Probst, B.M.; Romagnoli, G.; Woerner, A. Behavioral Interventions to Improve Home-Based Office-Workers’ Health. Trends Psychol. 2022, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Chau, J.Y.; Engelen, L.; Kolbe-Alexander, T.; Young, S.; Olsen, H.; Gilson, N.; Burton, N.W.; Bauman, A.E.; Brown, W.J. “In Initiative Overload”: Australian Perspectives on Promoting Physical Activity in the Workplace from Diverse Industries. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  38. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Physical Activity in the Workplace: Public Health Guideline [PH13]; NICE: London, UK, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  39. Safe Work Australia. Sitting and Standing|Safe Work Australia. Available online: https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/safety-topic/hazards/sitting-and-standing (accessed on 25 July 2022).
  40. World Health Organization. Global Status Report on Physical Activity 2022; WHO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  41. Rissel, C.; Curac, N.; Greenaway, M.; Bauman, A. Physical activity associated with public transport use-a review and modelling of potential benefits. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2012, 9, 2454–2478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  42. Bassett, D.R.; Pucher, J.; Buehler, R.; Thompson, D.L.; Crouter, S.E. Walking, cycling, and obesity rates in Europe, North America, and Australia. J. Phys. Act. Health 2008, 5, 795–814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Zander, A.; Rissel, C.; Rogers, K.; Bauman, A. Active travel to work in NSW: Trends over time and the effect of social advantage. Health Promot. J. Austr. 2014, 25, 167–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Le, H.T.; Buehler, R.; Hankey, S. Correlates of the built environment and active travel: Evidence from 20 US metropolitan areas. Environ. Health Perspect. 2018, 126, 077011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Yang, L.; Ding, C.; Ju, Y.; Yu, B. Driving as a commuting travel mode choice of car owners in urban China: Roles of the built environment. Cities 2021, 112, 103114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Greaves, S.; Beck, M.; Cobbold, A.; Standen, C.; Rissel, C.; Crane, M. Working from Home, Active Travel, Health and Wellbeing: Consequences of a Pandemic. SSRN. Available online: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4034725 (accessed on 26 April 2022).
  47. Hajat, C.; Hasan, A.; Subel, S.; Noach, A. The impact of short-term incentives on physical activity in a UK behavioural incentives programme. npj Digit. Med. 2019, 2, 91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Murtagh, E.M.; Murphy, M.H.; Milton, K.; Roberts, N.W.; O’Gorman, C.S.; Foster, C. Interventions outside the workplace for reducing sedentary behaviour in adults under 60 years of age. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2020, 7, CD012554. [Google Scholar]
  49. Hasson, R.; Sallis, J.F.; Coleman, N.; Kaushal, N.; Nocera, V.G.; Keith, N. COVID-19: Implications for physical activity, health disparities, and health equity. Am. J. Lifestyle Med. 2022, 16, 420–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Smith, M.; Hosking, J.; Woodward, A.; Witten, K.; MacMillan, A.; Field, A.; Baas, P.; Mackie, H. Systematic literature review of built environment effects on physical activity and active transport—An update and new findings on health equity. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2017, 14, 158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Bellew, B.; Nau, T.; Smith, B.; Bauman, A. Getting Australia Active III: A Systems Approach to Physical Activity for Policy Makers; The Australian Prevention Partnership Centre and The University of Sydney: Sydney, Australia, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  52. Doubleday, A.; Choe, Y.; Busch Isaksen, T.; Miles, S.; Errett, N.A. How did outdoor biking and walking change during COVID-19?: A case study of three U.S. cities. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0245514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Astell-Burt, T.; Feng, X. Time for ‘Green’ during COVID-19? Inequities in Green and Blue Space Access, Visitation and Felt Benefits. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 2757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Abdi, S.; de Witte, L.; Hawley, M. Emerging technologies with potential care and support applications for older people: Review of gray literature. JMIR Aging 2020, 3, e17286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Godin, K.; Stapleton, J.; Kirkpatrick, S.I.; Hanning, R.M.; Leatherdale, S.T. Applying systematic review search methods to the grey literature: A case study examining guidelines for school-based breakfast programs in Canada. Syst. Rev. 2015, 4, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ijerph 20 00073 g001 550
Figure 1. Flowchart of published and grey literature investigated.
Figure 1. Flowchart of published and grey literature investigated.
Ijerph 20 00073 g001
Table
Table 1. Summary search strategy.
Table 1. Summary search strategy.
Published Literature DatabasesScopus, Web of Science, Ebsco Host (Rehabilitation & Sports Medicine Source, MEDLINE Complete, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, Applied Science & Technology Source Ultimate, Business Source Ultimate, CINAHL Complete, SPORTDiscus)
Search EnginesGoogle; Mednar
Targeted WebsitesBusiness consulting (Deloitte; Gartner; Forbes; Earnest & Young; Price Waterhouse Cooper; McKinsey & company)
Government authority (Australian Productivity Commission; SafeWork Australia; National Institute for Health & Care Excellence UK, Health & Safety Executive UK; Centre for disease control USA)
International authority (World economic forum; World health organisation)
Search Terms(telecommut* OR “work* from home” OR “work* at home” OR telework* OR ( workplace* N1 flexib* ) OR “flexible work* arrangement*” OR “home working” OR “homeworking” OR “virtual office” OR “stay* at home”) AND ( physical* activ* OR “active travel*” OR exercise OR “sedentary behavior” OR sitting OR fitness OR sport* OR walk* OR cycling OR bicycl* OR “energy expenditure” OR “aerobic train*” OR “physical exertion” OR “resistance train*” OR “strength train*” ) AND AB ( intervention* OR initiative* OR experiment* OR evaluat* OR program* OR promot* OR policy OR strategy OR “prospective stud*” ) AND health*
Table
Table 2. Summary of included documents.
Table 2. Summary of included documents.
First Author and Reference CountryStudy DesignIntervention DescriptionPopulationSample SizePrimary Outcome(s) and Measures
Garcia [23]EcuadorPseudo-RCT ^A one-month yoga program of daily 10-min. routines.Desk-based workers (>18 years) (65% female) n = 94
(54 intervention; 40 control)		Self-reported musculoskeletal discomfort, mood disturbance
Mailey [24]United StatesRCTProvision of sit-stand desks; online education program designed to set goals and motivate SB breaks and PA.University workers (>18 years) from one university (80% female)n = 95
(24 intervention desk only; 23 programs only; 23 desk + program; 25 control)		Self-reported sitting time, total PA minutes (recorded by accelerometer) (Mets), BMI, cardiometabolic biomarkers (blood samples)
Muniswamy [29]IndiaRCTSocial media-based intervention 8 weeks—Facebook group with tailored information on PA (scheduled exercises, demonstrations, advice) and mental health (relaxation, work breaks), peer group motivation chat page, individual access to expert adviceHealthy young IT professionals (23–35 years) with active social media use; poor mental/physical health (35% female).n = 46 (22 intervention; 26 control)MVPA, sitting time, frequency of SB breaks, aerobic activity (VO2), BMI, stress, anxiety and depression scores
Moreira [25]PortugalQuasi-experimentWorkplace exercises with 3 × 15 min. sessions/wk. for 4 months.Office workers from an automotive organisation (18–65 years; 36% female)n = 39 (13 intervention; 26 control)Self-reported health status (SF-36 measuring pain, physical functioning, physical performance, emotional performance)
Núñez-Sánchez [28,30]SpainQualitative + post-intervention observation Two corporate policies and behavioral change intervention with a PA component (online trainer, tutorial videos, motivational videos, classes for family sports, online physiotherapist, and fitness and physio content).Office workers from one multi-location organisationn = 255 (253 survey participants; 2 interviewees)Self-reported change in PA; program satisfaction
Olsen [26]AustraliaQuasi-experiment (no control group)Behavioral change (group session for goal setting, and action planning); personalized activity plan, provision of an activity tracker for self- monitoring; social support; weekly email prompts; educational seminar.Office workers (mean age 39.5 years) from one organisation (69% female)n = 30 (within case comparison of office and WFH days)Self-reported sitting time; total sitting time/day;
Total PA minutes/day (walking & MVPA) (recorded by accelerometer)
Wadhen [27] United KingdomRCT50-min online yoga classes every week for 6 weeks.Workers from unspecified occupations (mean age 42.5 years) years) London-based organisations (female 91%)n = 52 (26 intervention; 26 control)Self-reported stress, depression, anxiety & self-efficacy; perceptions
Vantage Fit [32]GlobalNoneOnline exercise program of 7 exercises for daily duration >15 min.Not statedn/aNot stated
NIVA Education [31]DenmarkNoneOnline exercise program selection of 3 videos of 10 min. duration, recommended 3 × week.Not statedn/aNot stated
Be Upstanding [33]AustraliaNoneOnline exercise program set of 15 exercises with reps., designed to interrupt SB (suggested every 30 min). No duration specified. Not statedn/aNot stated
^ Some participants self-selected. BMI = Body mass index. IT—information Technology. MVPA = moderate–vigorous PA. RCT = randomized control trial.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Crane, M.; Cobbold, A.; Beck, M.; Nau, T.; Standen, C.; Rissel, C.; Smith, B.J.; Greaves, S.; Bellew, W.; Bauman, A. Interventions Designed to Support Physical Activity and Disease Prevention for Working from Home: A Scoping Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 73. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20010073

AMA Style

Crane M, Cobbold A, Beck M, Nau T, Standen C, Rissel C, Smith BJ, Greaves S, Bellew W, Bauman A. Interventions Designed to Support Physical Activity and Disease Prevention for Working from Home: A Scoping Review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2023; 20(1):73. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20010073

Chicago/Turabian Style

Crane, Melanie, Alec Cobbold, Matthew Beck, Tracy Nau, Christopher Standen, Chris Rissel, Ben J. Smith, Stephen Greaves, William Bellew, and Adrian Bauman. 2023. "Interventions Designed to Support Physical Activity and Disease Prevention for Working from Home: A Scoping Review" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 20, no. 1: 73. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20010073

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop